Amanda Knox guilty - all because of a cartwheel

[Fulcanelli]

I don't understand how this is hard. It seems very clear that not all the information was provided. There is a difference between "everything" and "everything they need". There is a difference between "That is enough" and "That is all".

You can deny reality or claim it is a mis-quote or fabrication but you can't make these words seem to mean something else.

No, I think you're depending on semantics to form a firm conclusion. One cannot conclude from this sentence that there is anything 'else'.

You are also relying on the assumption that she's quoted here word for word exactly as she said it and via translation from Italian to English.

 

[RoseMontague]

No, I think you're depending on semantics to form a firm conclusion. One cannot conclude from this sentence that there is anything 'else'.

You are also relying on the assumption that she's quoted here word for word exactly as she said it and via translation from Italian to English.

OK, so your position is either she was misquoted or her meaning was lost in translation. Sounds like the Amanda defense to me. Maybe she was smoking pot and got confused. Or possibly she just could not remember if the defense was given everything.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Bruce Fisher -

You stated some time ago you would examine the translated section from the Massei Report that posted, yet since that time you've been completely silent on the matter. It's here if you mislaid it: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5834900&postcount=7036

So, what 'are' your comments? In light of this analyses from the report, combined with the fact that both Filomena and Amanda had stated Filomena's room had been trashed/messed up, whatever term you prefer, do you still maintain that:

1. The window was broken with a rock thrown from outside
2. That someone climbed up the wall and entered the cottage via that window
3. That this person was Rudy Guede
4. That the mess seen in Filomena's room was done by Filomena herself
5. That the break-in was not staged and a real event

If so, can you outline your justification?

Finally, you have said here, in regard to this, that if you are shown to be wrong in this matter, you would readily update your site to reflect it. Now's the time to put this claim to the test and see if it is anything other then so much hot air. Will you now be correcting your site on these matters?

 

[BobTheDonkey]

I don't understand how this is hard. It seems very clear that not all the information was provided. There is a difference between "everything" and "everything they need". There is a difference between "That is enough" and "That is all".

You can deny reality or claim it is a mis-quote or fabrication but you can't make these words seem to mean something else.

If the Defense needed everything, then wouldn't that mean they received everything. False dichotomy win

 

[Fulcanelli]

OK, so your position is either she was misquoted or her meaning was lost in translation. Sounds like the Amanda defense to me. Maybe she was smoking pot and got confused. Or possibly she just could not remember if the defense was given everything.

What I'm saying, is that the firm conclusion you are attempting to draw from this cannot be made.

In any case, Comodi said in court back in September "That's all there is, there is nothing else." That seems rather clear to me.

 

[Amazer]

I don't understand how this is hard. It seems very clear that not all the information was provided. There is a difference between "everything" and "everything they need". There is a difference between "That is enough" and "That is all".

You can deny reality or claim it is a mis-quote or fabrication but you can't make these words seem to mean something else.

I'd still like to know if that's the complete and correctly translated quote or if there's more to it.

Even then, it could just be that she's referring to the fact that the prosecution has handed over all the evidence that was requested by the defense and what they are required to hand over as per Italian law. If so, this statement would not be incorrect.

 

[RoseMontague]

What I'm saying, is that the firm conclusion you are attempting to draw from this cannot be made.

In any case, Comodi said in court back in September "That's all there is, there is nothing else." That seems rather clear to me.

I guess she was mis-quoted or her actual meaning was lost in translation back in September then/ and or now. If not, she was either not correct then or not correct now.

I am fairly new here but my initial impression is of a rather "tribal" culture. One team for innocence that would seem to deny the obvious evidence indicative of guilt and another team that seems to deny anything that could possibly be considered indicative of innocence or even remotely helpful to the innocence side. Or perhaps there may be a third group that just wants to know the truth and are willing to consider some of the gray areas on either side of the issues.

I don't see it as productive to state that everything we see anywhere that does not agree with our personal opinion is the result of a PR machine, Amanda haters, guilters, or some FOA conspiracy. Some of what we see is reality and that reality may clash with our own personal opinions. Just my opinion.

 

[shuttlt]

Do the Comodi quote, or Falcanelli's firm assurances matter? If there is evidence that the defence feel they need, but do not have, let them file a motion for it. Their formal requests in the last trial were after all the forensic evidence had already been heard. If they think the FSA files, or anything else that they don't think they have, are important let them make an issue of it. If it isn't important enough for the defence to trouble themselves with, it shouldn't be important enough for us to trouble ourselves with.

Wake me when the defence formally request access to the FSA file from the court.

 

[Fulcanelli]

I guess she was mis-quoted or her actual meaning was lost in translation back in September then/ and or now. If not, she was either not correct then or not correct now.

I am fairly new here but my initial impression is of a rather "tribal" culture. One team for innocence that would seem to deny the obvious evidence indicative of guilt and another team that seems to deny anything that could possibly be considered indicative of innocence or even remotely helpful to the innocence side. Or perhaps there may be a third group that just wants to know the truth and are willing to consider some of the gray areas on either side of the issues.

I don't see it as productive to state that everything we see anywhere that does not agree with our personal opinion is the result of a PR machine, Amanda haters, guilters, or some FOA conspiracy. Some of what we see is reality and that reality may clash with our own personal opinions. Just my opinion.

It's got nothing to do with being tribal. Neither am I saying she 'was' misquoted. What I am saying is, that it's impossible from that one sentence, to make the leap to concluding that there are 'other' documents pertaining to the tests that have not been handed over to the FOA.

And Comodi certainly was not misquoted in regard to her statement in court in September. We can infer that with simple logic. Had that not been what she said and there was any hint there were other documents, then the defence would have demanded them and the judge would also have made an enquiry or/and ruling. Since none of this happened, then we can conclude that there are no other documents, or at least this was stated to be the case by the prosecution and this was accepted by the court.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

excuse me but

Wake me when the defence formally request access to the FSA file from the court.

Can you explain to me how you know what the defense did or did not ask for and when? I am unaware of such documents being made public.

 

[lector]

Ignoring Falcanelli's post for a second, the only way I can make sense of this without having the defence acting like incompetent baffoons is for them to have shared the prosecutions judgement that whatever data they don't have wasn't relevant. After the forensic testimony they realized they were in big trouble and clutched at this straw.

I think that the operant underlying theory of those who see great importance in the allegedly unreleased files - & I hesitate to put words in anyone's mouth but I too have been trying to make sense of this - is that the defense were repeatedly stymied by an uncooperative / hostile / conspiratorial (choose one or more) prosecution. This put them in the position of constantly having to play catchup during the trial of A&R. Therefore they could not mount an adequate defense.

If there's any truth to that, they will have had plenty of time & opportunity to catch up on everything for the appeal.

If there are unreleased files & there is any significance to them, I expect a holy stink to be raised during the appeal. Beyond this, it seems pointless to me to speculate.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

Can you explain to me how you know what the defense did or did not ask for and when? I am unaware of such documents being made public.

Well, we've shown where the Defense was given what they requested (or was informed that there was no more to give).

 

[Fulcanelli]

Can you explain to me how you know what the defense did or did not ask for and when? I am unaware of such documents being made public.

Because we were getting each day's events of the trial reported to us. If the defence had made a fuss, then this would have been reported, just as all the times they did make a fuss were.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

the dates were not given, among other things

Well, we've shown where the Defense was given what they requested (or was informed that there was no more to give).

BobTheDonkey,

Your dog won’t hunt. This is from a story dated 26 September 2009 (http://abcnews.go.com/International...a-evidence-amanda-knox-trial/story?id=8680234)

“In testifying for Knox, expert Sarah Gino, who has appeared in court before, called out the prosecution for providing amplified DNA samples with the dates missing.
These dates are important, Gino said, ‘because they would tell us what samples were tested together on the same day, which might indicate if some of them could have been contaminated.’
She also said dating the procedure for each sample was important to ensure that the amplification did not happen twice by mistake. She called the amplification of DNA the ‘key moment’ in DNA analysis.”

This testimony occurred well after the court order in the summer of 2006.

halides1

 

[Fulcanelli]

Yes and the documentation for them doesn't exist, since all the documentation that existed was handed over to the defence. However, the claim by Gino is complete nonsense, since the defence were invited to be present for each item tested. Therefore from those invitations, whether they attended or not, they would know what was tested and when.

It sounds to me like Gino's just trying it on.

 

[BobTheDonkey]

BobTheDonkey,

Your dog won’t hunt. This is from a story dated 26 September 2009 (http://abcnews.go.com/International...a-evidence-amanda-knox-trial/story?id=8680234)

“In testifying for Knox, expert Sarah Gino, who has appeared in court before, called out the prosecution for providing amplified DNA samples with the dates missing.
These dates are important, Gino said, ‘because they would tell us what samples were tested together on the same day, which might indicate if some of them could have been contaminated.’
She also said dating the procedure for each sample was important to ensure that the amplification did not happen twice by mistake. She called the amplification of DNA the ‘key moment’ in DNA analysis.”

This testimony occurred well after the court order in the summer of 2006.

halides1

And the motion filed in the Courtroom about this missing data?

 

[Moss]

At this point I'm pretty much in the camp "If there is anything they want and didn't get regarding the DNA analysis let them have it, even if it is just for resolving that issue once and for all." If they get anything interesting it may influence the case, if not it's the defense's wasted money and time.

Admittedly spurious sidenote: I find it slightly amusing that Raffaele didn't get sued for copyright infringement.
That the diagnosis of when the video file was last accessed was made via the timestamp produced by the system and not the log of the player software might produce incorrect results. Because that timestamp can actually be automatically modified by things like indexing software and virus scanners. (Though the latter seems unlikely because Raffaele used a Mac.)

 

[stilicho]

Yes and the documentation for them doesn't exist, since all the documentation that existed was handed over to the defence. However, the claim by Gino is complete nonsense, since the defence were invited to be present for each item tested. Therefore from those invitations, whether they attended or not, they would know what was tested and when.

It sounds to me like Gino's just trying it on.

Why are we still arguing about this? The defence is clearly arguing contamination and not that they don't have the data to argue contamination. Who knows what Gino is on about but it seems typical of these clownshoes the defence plastered together.

Taggliabracci didn't even know many of the basics of the case during his 'expert' testimony.

I'll bet they don't come back with this same group.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

independent review

And the motion filed in the Courtroom about this missing data?

The defense asked for an independent review of the forensics. This would have not been necessary if the prosecution had turned over the information that had been requested.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

Cd rom

Yes and the documentation for them doesn't exist, since all the documentation that existed was handed over to the defence. However, the claim by Gino is complete nonsense, since the defence were invited to be present for each item tested. Therefore from those invitations, whether they attended or not, they would know what was tested and when.

It sounds to me like Gino's just trying it on.

The dates are part of the fsa files. All the prosecution had to do was burn a CD ROM and send it. There are also machine logs. The idea that the defense has to be present at each of several hundred tests in Rome to get the dates is ridiculous.